Dr Obukhanych's position:

"I am very concerned that "immunologic memory" of adjuvant-containing vaccines is actually the basis of sensitization [allergy] rather than the basis of immunity. Furthermore, I am very concerned that "successful" prevention of childhood diseases by means of short-term protective effects of live attenuated viral vaccines during childhood has led to the loss of maternal ability to transfer immuno-protection to their young, thereby leaving infants vulnerable to those diseases, should the exposure occur.

"I am also very concerned that vaccination campaigns work by disrupting disease transmission, which reduces the chances of exposure, rather than by establishing a population's immunity. By doing so, vaccination campaigns wipe out population's immunity to childhood diseases rather than help to maintain it. If in prior decades there was naturally established herd immunity to childhood diseases among the adult population, then I am afraid that vaccination campaigns have ensured that it is long gone.

"All of this is a direct outcome of the "desired" vaccination effects, the impact of which hasn't been carefully thought through in advance of introducing mass vaccination. We thought that vaccines work just like natural immunity. Well, apparently they don't and we are now reaping the consequences of that.

"We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases. I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response, that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically "want" to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete."

Excerpt from Book Review by Dr Obukhanych of Melanie's Marvelous Measles: Melanie's Marvelous Measles concludes that "for most children it is a good thing to get measles; many wise people believe measles make the body stronger and more mature for the future." It is not difficult to see why this makes sense, once we understand the irreplaceability of naturally acquired immunity in preventing measles in infants of the next generation, in whom it would surely be deadly.

Such natural maternal protection is now systematically eliminated over the span of generations in many countries around the world. This is done by preventing exposure to measles in healthy children who would have withstood the disease without complications and would have developed immunity to protect their own very young offspring, who are not eligible for getting the measles vaccine before the age of one. If naturally acquired immunity were preserved, we would not have to fear infant measles mortality, as we do now.

Indeed, according to the representatives of the medical establishment and public health, measles can be a deadly disease. This statement is entirely correct and factual... due to making it more prevalent in infants via mass vaccination of the generation of their mothers. The clear and loud statement to the frightened public that measles can be deadly could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy, when the individual and cross-generational requirements of the proper function of the immune system are interfered with [via vaccination]. Book review on Examiner.com

How Vaccination Reduces Herd Immunity

The term, "herd immunity", was coined by researcher, A W Hedrich, after he'd studied the epidemiology of measles in USA between 1900-1931. His study published in the May, 1933 American Journal of Epidemiology concluded that when 68% of children younger than 15 yrs old had become immune to measles via infection, measles epidemics ceased. For several reasons, this natural, pre-vaccine herd immunity differed greatly from today's vaccine "herd immunity". 1,2

When immunity was derived from natural infection, a much smaller proportion of the population needed to become immune to show the herd effect; compare the 68% measles immunity required for natural herd immunity to the very high percentages of vaccine uptake deemed necessary for measles vaccine "herd immunity". In his "Vaccine Safety Manual", Neil Z Miller cites research which concluded increasing vaccine uptake necessary for "herd immunity" ranging from 70 to 80 percent of two year olds in inner cities in 1991 to --close to 100 percent coverage-- with a vaccine that is 90 to 98 percent effective in 1997. Miller notes that, "When the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, officials were confident that they could eradicate the disease by 1967."

Subsequently, new dates for eradication were pronounced as 1982, 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, In 1990, after examining 320 scientific works from around the world, 180 European medical doctors concluded that the eradication of measles would today appear to be an unrealistic goal. And in 1984, Professor D. Levy of Johns Hopkins University had already concluded that if current practices [of suppressing natural immunity] continue, by the year 2050 a large part of the population will be at risk and there could in theory be over 25,000 fatal cases of measles in the USA.

Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who'd never had the disease or been exposed to it, the "herd immunity" of the entire population was maintained at all times.

Vaccine "herd immunity" is hit-and-miss; outbreaks of disease sometimes erupt in those who follow recommended vaccine schedules. If they do actually "immunize", vaccines provide only short-term immunity so, in an attempt to maintain "herd immunity", health authorities hold cattle drives to round up older members of the "herd" for administration of booster shots. And on it goes, to the point that, now, it's recommended we accept cradle-to-grave shots of vaccine against pertussis, a disease which still persists after more than sixty years of widespread use of the vaccine.

Russell Blaylock, MD remarks, "One of the grand lies of the vaccine program is the concept of "herd immunity". In fact, vaccines for most Americans declined to non-protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the vaccines. This means that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as others in the developed world, herd immunity doesn't exist and hasn't for over 60 years." 3

In the pre-vaccine era, newborns could receive antibodies against infectious diseases from their mothers who had themselves been infected as children and re-exposed to the diseases later in life. Today's babies born to mothers who were vaccinated and never exposed to these diseases do not receive these antibodies. In direct contrast to fear mongering disease "facts" and "herd immunity" theories related by Public Health, most of today's babies are more vulnerable than babies of the pre-vaccine era.

References:
1. Monthly estimates of the child population "susceptible" to measles, 1900-1931, Baltimore, Maryland; A W Hedrich; American Journal of Epidemiology; May 1933, Oxford University Press.

Some vaccinating parents fear unvaccinated children!

"This makes absolutely no sense. They want all kids vaccinated because "in theory" the vaccine makes you immune to the disease and unable to pass it on. But if their kid is vaccinated, even if my unvaxed child gets sick, their child (again) "in theory" should be safe from getting sick. So why do they care if my kid has shots or not if their kid is vaxed? Sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't say they are effective and then be scared of unvaxed kids." -Kelly B.

A vaccinating mom agrees: "I get my kids vaccinated, but if my child has had the necessary shots, how is someone else's unvaxed child a threat? I thought the point of making my kids a human pin cushion was so that regardless of what other people do, my kids, with proper hygiene, nutrition and vaccines, should be safe. If another child becomes sick, fine, pull them out, but your unvaxed child should not be a threat to mine unless the doctors are lying --which I get is also possible-- but it makes you wonder, what really is the truth on it if they push it so hard and still don't stand behind it enough to think it will work." -Nicole M.

On the idea of segregating unvaxed children: "I think that it would be a good idea, for a short time, that the unvaccinated are segregated to prove that it is in the vaccinated population where the outbreaks are occurring!" -Sarah N.